5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Belgrade.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 16 October 1990 the owner of the flat in which the applicant lived filed a civil action with the First Municipal Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking her eviction.
8.  In his claim, the plaintiff maintained that the applicant had lost “the status of a protected tenant” (nosilac stanarskog prava odnosno zakupac stana na neodređeno vreme), as provided for under the relevant domestic legislation.
9.  On 4 April 1994 the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.
10.  On 20 October 1994 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade quashed this judgment in view of the unlawful composition of the trial chamber at first instance and sent the case back for a retrial.
11.  From 16 May 1995 to 28 February 2002, the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant on two separate occasions but each time its judgments were quashed on appeal by either the District Court or the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) and were remitted.
12.  On 2 September 2002 the First Municipal Court ruled again in favour of the applicant.
13.  On 29 April 2003 the District Court quashed this judgment on appeal. It noted, once more, the unlawful composition of the trial chamber at first instance and ordered a retrial before the Municipal Court.
14.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant complained to the President of the First Municipal Court, stating that the presiding judge in her case, despite repeatedly ruling in her favour, kept committing procedural errors on the basis of which higher courts always had grounds to order a retrial.
15.  On 16 March 2004 the President of the First Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and assigned another judge to deal with her case.
16.  From 20 April 2004 to 6 July 2006, the First Municipal Court scheduled another twelve hearings. Only three of those, on 15 September 2005, 11 May 2006 and 6 July 2006, were held as scheduled, while the others appear to have been adjourned on various grounds. In particular the hearings scheduled for: (i) 20 April 2004 and 6 April 2005 were adjourned because of the presiding judge’s need for additional time in order to review the case file; (ii) 27 September 2004 because of the absence of the presiding judge; (iii) 24 November 2004, 28 November 2005 and 24 February 2006 because of several witnesses who had either not been served properly or had failed to appear in court; and (iv) 25 June 2004, 2 February 2005 and 26 May 2005 because of the need to obtain additional written evidence and/or hear additional witnesses.
17.  The next hearing in the case was held on 5 September 2006.
18.  On 11 September 2006 the First Municipal Court decided that the proceedings should not be joined with a related case filed by the applicant separately.
19.  On 17 October 2006 the First Municipal Court ruled again in favour of the applicant. In so doing, it recognised the plaintiff as the owner of the flat in question, but, at the same time, held that the applicant, being a protected tenant, had a right to continue living therein.
20.  On an unspecified date the applicant, as well as the plaintiff, appealed against this judgment. The applicant, in particular, maintained that she should have been recognised as the owner of the flat in question.
21.  On 30 May 2007 the District Court rejected both appeals and upheld the judgment rendered at first instance.
22.  On 9 July 2007 the plaintiff filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court.
23.  On 16 August 2007 the applicant filed a request for the protection of legality (zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti) with the same court.
24.  The applicant has been living in the flat at issue throughout the proceedings.